- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:57:16 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 08:45:36AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20120806083754.GB3961@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: > >On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:11:35AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > >> >2.0 client talks to 2.0 local proxy talking to 1.1 internet. > >> > >> That's not a terribly interesting use-case is it ? > > > >This use case should prevail in mobile environments. Your smartphone > >should have an explicit proxy configured (instead of passing via an > >interception proxy) that will also save it from round trips caused > >by DNS requests. > > But is 1.1 vs. 2.0 proxy really going to make that much of a difference ? The 1.1 to 2.0 proxy is not going to help a lot, but the 2.0 client to 2.0 proxy to 1.1 internet that Adrien was talking about above is going to be the biggest immediate win. I predict that we will see them appear before the protocol is finalized. With a 300ms RTT on the air medium and around 10ms on the wire, you can safely expect that if a client is able to send all requests at once so that the proxy parallelizes them to 1.1 hosts on "infinite bandwidth" links, it would be foolish not to deploy it. Willy
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 08:57:47 UTC